2. cables
  3. 128927-305

Most Important, Unloved Cable...

Ethernet. I used to say the power cord was the most unloved, but important cable. Now, I update that assessment to the Ethernet cable. Review work forthcoming. 

I can't wait to invite my newer friend who is an engineer who was involved with the construction of Fermilab, the National Accelerator Lab, to hear this! Previously he was an overt mocker; no longer. He decided to try comparing cables and had his mind changed. That's not uncommon, as many of you former skeptics know. :)

I had my biggest doubts about the Ethernet cable. But, I was wrong - SO wrong! I'm so happy I made the decision years ago that I would try things rather than simply flip a coin mentally and decide without experience. It has made all the difference in quality of systems and my enjoyment of them. Reminder; I settled the matter of efficacy of cables years before becoming a reviewer and with my own money, so my enthusiasm for them does not spring from reviewing. Reviewing has allowed me to more fully explore their potential.  

I find fascinating the cognitive dissonance that exists between the skeptical mind in regard to cables and the real world results which can be obtained with them. I'm still shaking my head at this result... profoundly unexpected results way beyond expectation. Anyone who would need an ABX for this should exit the hobby and take up gun shooting, because your hearing would be for crap.  
douglas_schroeder
douglas_schroeder OP
3,281 posts
 
dynaquest14, You're talking to a person who did ABX testing and passed it multiple times. So, don't talk to me about "want/need/paid to hear". 




shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
@douglas_schroeder

I don’t agree.

I prefer to buy audio equipment that maximizes the source signal and minimizes errors from unintended pathways like Ethernet or power supply, humidity, temperature etc.

I am sorry but I don’t care what expensive name is on a product - if the product is badly designed such that you have to baby it with special cables this is just all too ridiculous to me - more so the more costly (and supposedly robustly performant) the product. For me it is best to move on when a product is as finicky as worrying about an Ethernet cable.
grannyring's avatar
grannyring
6,504 posts
 
What brand computer do you suggest that is built not to reflect the sound of various Ethernet cables?  What laptop, streamer, or desktop device is up to snuff to you? 
folkfreak's avatar
folkfreak
1,349 posts
 
@shadorne seems you have really never listened to a digital rig that can resolve the differences in cables. The reality is actually that cables are in some cases the limiting factor in current top end digital reproduction.

My current digital rig is a DCS Vivaldi stack. I was surprised to discover that increasing the clock frequency (from 44.1 to 88.2 or 176.4) far from making it sound better, made it sound worse -- despite the fact that the upsampler and DAC were operating at these higher frequencies (i.e. if I clock them at 44.1 they need to increase the clock frequency in each component). Surely it would be better to generate that higher f clock once only?

Turns out not because even with the current best available BNC cables (Transparent Ref XL) the timing and jitter errors introduced in transmitting higher frequency clocks are audible, hence better to stick with a stable shared 44.1 and go from there. 

shadorne's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
shadorne
7,477 posts
 
@folkfreak  

I have observed jitter problems with DSP DACS and even CD players.

I am aware of jitter transmission issues with clock signals.

Since I moved to Benchmark DAC's about a decade ago I have not had any jitter issues (at least not audible ones). I use optical - so no physical wires between my digital sources and the DAC (except what they share through mains power)

My understanding is that Benchmark are not using traditional jitter prone PLL master/slave algorithms and my listening experience seems to support their claims.
More to discover